Tucker Carlson has warned that President Trump could decide within days whether to use a nuclear weapon against Iran, an allegation that places an extraordinary possibility alongside the administration’s public support for further negotiations.

The proposed target is Pickaxe Mountain, a fortified underground complex near Natanz. Carlson claims Israeli intelligence believes uranium enrichment has resumed there and that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is pressing Trump to attack. The Daily Caller News Foundation reports a source familiar with the matter corroborated the central allegation.

According to Carlson, Vice President JD Vance and envoy Steve Witkoff favor a negotiated settlement, while several senior national security officials support renewed combat. He suggested a decision could come by November 7. However, that account conflicts with Trump’s October 15 statement that he would not use nuclear weapons against Iran.

Technical questions also remain unresolved. An October analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies suggested the facility was not yet capable of enrichment. Its depth makes destruction difficult, but conventional attacks could potentially obstruct access. No nuclear strike has been publicly announced by the administration.

There is a stark difference between destroying a facility and stopping its work and using a nuclear weapon. If conventional strikes can block entrances or disable supporting infrastructure, the inability to reach the deepest chamber does not necessitate the use of nuclear weapons. Nor does a suspected enrichment site automatically present an imminent threat…

This Cybercab you see in this image is taking me to Elon Musk’s new project…

Which he called “the most epic AI project in history.”

This is so big that I believe it will open a brand-new “generational wealth window…”

And whenever Elon opens one of those windows, people get rich.

A nuclear attack is not a simple bombing, as it carries repercussions that extend far beyond the target in question. The military value in using a nuclear strike in any capacity is a serious matter that should always be heavily scrutinized, particularly since its radioactive contamination and escalation could impose costs on countries with no part in the decision.

Since 1945, governments have fought wars under the constraint that nuclear weapons remain unused. Breaking that restraint could alter how other nuclear powers assess their own options, even if Washington described its action as exceptional.

The danger, of course, is that if one nation fires a nuke, it makes the idea less taboo and theoretically increases the chances of another country following suit. If the U.S. uses a nuke in Iran, what’s stopping Russia from using one on Ukraine, or India and Pakistan firing one at each other? While the U.S. firing a nuke at Iran does not automatically mean other nations will follow their example, it’s a grave contingency many would rather not speculate on.

An American nuclear strike would force every other nuclear power to reconsider when it could use its own arsenal. The danger goes beyond however Iran decides to retaliate, as a precedent established in one war could influence decisions in the next.

The obvious worry should the U.S. use a nuclear strike is that Americans would therefore be living with a far greater risk that a confrontation abroad could escalate into a nuclear exchange. No leader can guarantee that the consequences would remain confined to the original battlefield.

Destroying an Iranian facility would therefore be an inadequate measure of success, and Trump would have to weigh any military gain against the possibility of making nuclear warfare more likely. A decision taken within days could leave generations living under a more dangerous sky.